GOP and Energy Lobbies In Closed Talks to Destroy All Climate Change Rules

EnvironmentJanuary 2011 • Views: 27,677

You’ll never see a more blatant expression of the Republican Party’s servitude to the energy industries than this. No, the title is not an exaggeration.

Top staff members for key House and Senate Republicans met in a closed-door session Tuesday with energy industry interests to work on strategy to handcuff the Obama administration’s climate change agenda.

With the backing of GOP caucus leaders, aides for House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) are seeking unwavering support from a host of industries for an all-out push to block federal and state climate rules.

“The feedback we got was ‘hey, great, go for it guys,’” one Republican aide told POLITICO. “And we pretty strongly told them we do need your help to get this done. And when we walked away from the meeting the feeling was we got that.”

The roster of those attending the invitation-only gathering is being kept under lock and key, though it is believed to include the American Petroleum Institute, National Mining Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others.

Nothing to see here; just the same old anti-science Republican Party and their corporate masters, screwing the people and the environment for profit. Want to know why I totally reject the GOP and the right wing? This is just one of the reasons.

Jump to bottom

80 comments

iossarian Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:32:31am

By a happy coincidence, the BBC reports that:

2010 hits global temperature high

Vicious Babushka Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:32:49am

And I just wrote to my congress representative suggesting tax credits for people who purchase hybrid vehicles.

After also writing to the company I work for, suggesting more incentives and promotions for hybrids.

Gus Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:32:58am

Closed talks? This must be the transparency that the GOP has been touting of late.

I thought the GOP said they wouldn’t have any closed door negotiations.

Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:33:15am

Damaging the enviornment is bad for the economy.

Creating new energy technologies would be great for the economy.

Right now, China is kicking our ass on that front. If we don’t shape up and stop coddling the fossil fuel dinosaurs, and move forwards into next-generation technologies, we are going to quickly lose our economic dominance.

Not to mention that failing to solve the next-gen energy problem is going to ensure that AGW keeps accelerating, potentially endangering the entirety of human civilization.

But that’s too big to really think about, so I think concentrating on the fact that we’re losing economic ground to China on new energy is a better way of engaging with people.

iossarian Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:33:31am

re: #3 Gus 802

Closed talks? This must be the transparency that the GOP has been touting of late.

I thought the GOP said they wouldn’t have any closed door negotiations.

I think they meant that the Democratic party mustn’t have any more closed door negotiations.

iossarian Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:38:42am

re: #4 Obdicut

Agreed, except that I think the part about “losing our economic dominance” is inevitable, short of some kind of horrific military conflict. China is simply a bigger potential market.

I am actually sort of hopeful that they will do a better job of safeguarding the environment than we managed (though to be fair, they could hardly do much worse).

jc717 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:39:08am

The climate change war is already lost. We can’t reverse the trend. It’s over.
But…. so what? We’ll move our cities to higher ground and move our farms to areas where climate will be more favorable. It’s not the end of the world unless you can’t live without FL, NO, or Amsterdam.

mojo9 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:42:41am

re: #4 Obdicut

China knows that the only way to support their growing economy is to find sustainable energy sources. We, on the other hand, are addicted to oil and seemingly refuse to find the cure. Or, at least, only make token efforts to date.

SpaceJesus Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:42:53am

The Republican Party is the party of big business interests that don’t give a damn about the average American, the future of America, or even the future of the planet we live on.

MarkAM Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:43:05am

Most (if not all…maybe not Inhofe) of these people know better. Evil is too kind a word to describe them.

SpaceJesus Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:43:08am

Deport all Republicans.

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:43:35am

You know, you hear Republicans argue that the government fall once a majority of people realize they can vote themselves more money (which leads to that old chestnut that somehow half the population doesn’t pay taxes, and therefore we’re heading to a socialist state). But I look at stuff like this and it drives home the point that it doesn’t matter who pays taxes, It’s the Corporations that drive the government and drive government policy.

It’s ironic that I count myself as a Libertarian, because to me, Corporations are Sociopaths. But Corporations kept in check by a strong independent body isn’t a real danger, it’s when Corporations and politicians merge together to use government to enable corporations that you have real problems. Regulatory capture is one symptom of that merger. Having politicians promoting an agenda like Ethanol and subsidies to protect industries is another.

I think global warming deniers are in 3 categories, The Young Earth Creationists, The ‘it’s not man made, therefore we’re helpless to stop it.’ and the ‘it’s bad for business, so who cares if the Earth burns, we’re making a profit’ And the companies with the money and profits at stake are the ones denying and buying off the Republicans.

iossarian Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:43:40am

re: #9 SpaceJesus

The Republican Party is the party of big business interests that don’t give a damn about the average American, the future of America, or even the future of the planet we live on.

Admit it, you stole that right off their website FAQ, didn’t you!

Talking Point Detective Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:48:02am

re: #4 Obdicut

Creating new energy technologies would be great for the economy.

Don’t know if you saw the end of the previous thread. Apparently, you’re quite mistaken. Research in new energy technologies is a waste of money - and such programs should be cut (along with public transportation, SS, Medicare and other unimportant drags on the economy).

[Link: online.wsj.com…]

Some scary shit in that editorial.

SpaceJesus Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:48:41am

re: #13 iossarian

Nope. Just a master at stating the obvious.

Gus Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:49:12am

James M. Inhofe: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator Career | OpenSecrets

Top 5 Contributors, 1989 - 2010

Contributor Total Indivs PACs
Koch Industries $86,650 $44,050 $42,600
Murray Energy $65,800 $40,800 $25,000
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn $55,869 $0 $55,869
American Airlines $52,400 $4,250 $48,150
United Parcel Service $51,850 $0 $51,850

Top 5 Industries, 1989 - 2010

Industry Total Indivs PACs
Oil & Gas $1,246,323 $676,121 $570,202
Retired $617,846 $617,846 $0
Leadership PACs $526,776 $0 $526,776
Health Professionals $458,850 $323,785 $135,065
Electric Utilities $447,967 $44,704 $403,263

Fred Upton: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Representative Career | OpenSecrets

Top 5 Contributors, 1989 - 2010

Contributor Total Indivs PACs
AT&T Inc $94,600 $3,000 $91,600
CMS Energy $93,628 $13,000 $80,628
Whirlpool Corp $80,770 $60,070 $20,700
Ford Motor Co $79,600 $22,800 $56,800
National Assn of Broadcasters $74,300 $13,900 $60,400

Top 5 Industries, 1989 - 2010

Industry Total Indivs PACs
Health Professionals $715,178 $106,385 $608,793
Retired $647,738 $647,738 $0
Electric Utilities $512,378 $28,750 $483,628

jaunte Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:51:27am

re: #16 Gus 802

It’s always kind of surprising, given what’s at stake, how relatively small the price is to buy the influence of legislators.

Ericus58 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:51:57am

re: #11 SpaceJesus

Deport all Republicans.

Do I get to choose where you are sending me?
/

garhighway Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:52:21am

Wow. Look at that list:

American Petroleum Institute, National Mining Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce…

THERE’S a bunch of people who really, really care about the long-term health of the environment. Not.

Randy W. Weeks Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:52:46am

At the risk of repeating myself, 100 years from now people are going to be spitting on the graves of these jackasses.

AWG: the ultimate job killer.

Gus Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:53:04am

re: #17 jaunte

It’s always kind of surprising, given what’s at stake, how relatively small the price is to buy the influence of legislators.

I’m sure there’s a lot of unreported “under the table” wining, dining and junkets.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:56:23am

[Link: www.politico.com…] live feed of President Hu Jintao Speech press conference

Big Steve Thu, Jan 20, 2011 9:57:57am

re: #19 garhighway

Wow. Look at that list:

American Petroleum Institute, National Mining Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce…

THERE’S a bunch of people who really, really care about the long-term health of the environment. Not.

Well maybe you could express your displeasure towards those organizations more effectively by completely boycotting the products they sell.

Kragar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:00:46am

And yet Bryan Fischer makes no claims that Satan influences these people.

garhighway Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:01:14am

re: #23 Big Steve

Well maybe you could express your displeasure towards those organizations more effectively by completely boycotting the products they sell.

Gee, there’s a useful suggestion.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:01:27am

Hu Jintao just mentioned anti-proliferation and climate change as examples of the biggest recent achievements of sino-american cooperation.

Heh.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:02:07am

re: #26 000G

That should read “climate change policies”.

Big Steve Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:02:30am

btw……outstanding cartoon today on Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal Comics SMBC on creationism.

Vicious Babushka Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:02:58am

re: #23 Big Steve

Well maybe you could express your displeasure towards those organizations more effectively by completely boycotting the products they sell.

I don’t think we are going to see too many people naked, living in caves and eating grass and raw meat. Because that’s what you would have to do in order to boycott all the products made by these companies.

Feline Fearless Leader Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:03:13am

re: #7 jc717

The climate change war is already lost. We can’t reverse the trend. It’s over.
But… so what? We’ll move our cities to higher ground and move our farms to areas where climate will be more favorable. It’s not the end of the world unless you can’t live without FL, NO, or Amsterdam.

If we’ve collectively put our heads in the sand as a world civilization regarding the oncoming major climate changes what makes you think in the least that the same leadership will have any forethought towards starting the projects to build infrastructure to support shifting city populations, resources, and convert land to arable use?

Cities (and farms) don’t sprout out of the sand when you plant magic seeds, and the costs would be astronomical compared to anything done by our country in the past. Simply attempting it would change our culture in multiple ways.

Plus, once things start going downhill those who couldn’t afford to move their cities (or didn’t care enough to), or where left out for one reason or another, will come clamoring to the high ground and available food as well. Another facet that will irrevocably change our culture and outlook.

Given that, it appears quite logical to attempt to alleviate the worst of things now and not have to tear up and attempt to move everything later. But America and it’s leadership seem unable to make sacrifices now as an investment towards preventing much greater disruption later.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:06:22am

re: #7 jc717

The climate change war is already lost. We can’t reverse the trend. It’s over.
But… so what? We’ll move our cities to higher ground and move our farms to areas where climate will be more favorable. It’s not the end of the world unless you can’t live without FL, NO, or Amsterdam.

Yeah, forget gold. Invest in mountainous real estate now!

Kragar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:07:44am

re: #31 000G

Yeah, forget gold. Invest in mountainous real estate now!

Infrastructure pays for itself in the long run.

Lidane Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:08:43am

re: #24 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And yet Bryan Fischer makes no claims that Satan influences these people.

Of course not. They’re not liberals or Democrats.

///

Interesting Times Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:09:28am

re: #9 SpaceJesus

The Republican Party is the party of big business interests that don’t give a damn about the average American, the future of America, or even the future of the planet we live on.

Even more reason to root for the recovery of a certain Democratic congresswoman:

Gabrielle Giffords a Champion of Green Causes

She supported clean energy legislation; a bold move considering the nature of her swing district. She argued that subsidies to the oil industry ought to be repealed, and redirected to clean energy research. She introduced the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, which according to Politico, dedicated “$2 billion to new research partnerships and demonstration projects for solar energy technologies.” It easily passed the house.

She even drew the attention of the nation (and the ire of some conservative pundits) when she asked General Petreaus a very valid question about what he was doing to relieve the military’s dependence on fossil fuels.

Big Steve Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:09:31am

re: #29 Alouette

I don’t think we are going to see too many people naked, living in caves and eating grass and raw meat. Because that’s what you would have to do in order to boycott all the products made by these companies.

right….so we aren’t willing to do without their products and services but we are very willing to go immediately up the ladder of inference and assume that these organizations will always act against the best interests of the country, the environment, and the consumers they serve.

Jadespring Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:10:36am

History will not speak well of these folks.

MrSilverDragon Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:10:44am

re: #29 Alouette

I don’t think we are going to see too many people naked, living in caves and eating grass and raw meat.

Damn, that sounds like a mighty fun weekend, though.

Kragar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:10:56am

re: #35 Big Steve

right…so we aren’t willing to do without their products and services but we are very willing to go immediately up the ladder of inference and assume that these organizations will always act against the best interests of the country, the environment, and the consumers they serve.

0 or 1
Black or White
Stuffing or Potatoes

Vicious Babushka Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:11:29am

re: #35 Big Steve

right…so we aren’t willing to do without their products and services but we are very willing to go immediately up the ladder of inference and assume that these organizations will always act against the best interests of the country, the environment, and the consumers they serve.

You are posing a false dichotomy.

Lidane Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:11:32am

Want to know why I totally reject the GOP and the right wing? This is just one of the reasons.

One of many reasons for me as well. It just feels like they go out of their way to be gigantic assholes about anyone other than themselves.

Kragar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:11:33am

re: #37 MrSilverDragon

Damn, that sounds like a mighty fun weekend, though.

Most nudists are not people you want to see naked.

Interesting Times Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:11:54am

re: #36 Jadespring

History will not speak well of these folks.

They don’t care. They’re mostly evil, selfish old men who’ll be dead by the time the worst consequences of AGW hit the world.

Vicious Babushka Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:11:58am

re: #37 MrSilverDragon

Damn, that sounds like a mighty fun weekend, though.

I said eating grass, not smoking it.

MrSilverDragon Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:13:51am

re: #41 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Most nudists are not people you want to see naked.

I know. If I was a nudist, I’d be one of them.

re: #43 Alouette

I said eating grass, not smoking it.

Potayto, potahto…

avanti Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:14:54am

re: #4 Obdicut

Damaging the enviornment is bad for the economy.

Creating new energy technologies would be great for the economy.

Right now, China is kicking our ass on that front. If we don’t shape up and stop coddling the fossil fuel dinosaurs, and move forwards into next-generation technologies, we are going to quickly lose our economic dominance.

Not to mention that failing to solve the next-gen energy problem is going to ensure that AGW keeps accelerating, potentially endangering the entirety of human civilization.

But that’s too big to really think about, so I think concentrating on the fact that we’re losing economic ground to China on new energy is a better way of engaging with people.

Yep, I just read the Chinese are buying a lot C02 scrubbers from the US.

Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:15:31am

And again, I urge everyone, of every political stripe, to write to all of your representatives and senators, at the state and national level, and let them know how important this issue is to you.

That is the only way that we will see action on this.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:16:37am

I wonder how Hu Jintao’s praising of China’s socialist system will go over in the US press…

Jadespring Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:18:28am

re: #42 publicityStunted

They don’t care. They’re mostly evil, selfish old men who’ll be dead by the time the worst consequences of AGW hit the world.

I know they don’t care or are too ignorant to care. That’s just a given.

It’s just so damn sad and depressing. It’s like watching a long slow car wreck that’s going to suck everyone into the crash no matter if they’re paying attention to it or not.

I’ve pretty much given up that the “powers that be” are going to ever do anything pro-active about it, right, left or whomever. There is just so many forces working against anything really concrete happening from the top end down.

Not that I’ve given up entirely. Just taking a different approach to the whole thing now.

Big Steve Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:20:12am

re: #39 Alouette

You are posing a false dichotomy.

Oh really?

1. Organization X is powerful because the make a lot of money.
2. Organization X makes money by selling a product to as many people who can buy it.
3. I am a consumer of Organization X’s products.
4. Organization X is doing things that while legal, I disagree strongly with.

Therefore which of the following should you do:
A. Stop buying X’s product and lower their revenue.
B. Continue to buy X’s product and keep them strong and powerful.
C. I am unwilling to stop buying their product because it would ruin my lifestyle so I will just continue to buy from them but will hate them and make no attempt to influence them in any meaningful way.

So what part is sillogistically incorrect?

Alexzander Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:20:45am

re: #20 LoneStarSpur

At the risk of repeating myself, 100 years from now people are going to be spitting on the graves of these jackasses.

If some of the current predictions come true, they may be spitting on all of our graves. An estimated 120 species go extinct every day, and since 1950, 90 % of big ocean fish have disappeared. There are also expected to be massive shortages of clean drinking water in the next 50 years, which in addition to the possibility of massive death, will also be tremendously geo-politically destabilizing. Especially in the India/Pakistan region.

reloadingisnotahobby Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:21:24am

re: #21 Gus 802

I’m sure there’s a lot of unreported “under the table” wining, dining and junkets.

You forgot HOOKERS!!
Really high end HOOKERS!!

Alexzander Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:21:48am

re: #46 Obdicut

And again, I urge everyone, of every political stripe, to write to all of your representatives and senators, at the state and national level, and let them know how important this issue is to you.

That is the only way that we will see action on this.

I think its going to take a lot more than that.

Vicious Babushka Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:24:09am

re: #49 Big Steve

C. I am unwilling to stop buying their product because it would ruin my lifestyle so I will just continue to buy from them

The alternative to purchasing their product is to strip naked and go live in a cave. Who is willing to do that, other than some extremely disturbed individuals?

Boycott is not an option because these mega-corporations control everything.

Feline Fearless Leader Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:25:25am

re: #49 Big Steve

Oh really?

1. Organization X is powerful because the make a lot of money.
2. Organization X makes money by selling a product to as many people who can buy it.
3. I am a consumer of Organization X’s products.
4. Organization X is doing things that while legal, I disagree strongly with.

Therefore which of the following should you do:
A. Stop buying X’s product and lower their revenue.
B. Continue to buy X’s product and keep them strong and powerful.
C. I am unwilling to stop buying their product because it would ruin my lifestyle so I will just continue to buy from them but will hate them and make no attempt to influence them in any meaningful way.

So what part is sillogistically incorrect?

You forgot option (D) where they go wingnut terrorist and start bombing the executive’s chalets in Vail…

///

webevintage Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:25:49am

what a bunch of bastards….

wrenchwench Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:27:53am

re: #47 000G

I wonder how Hu Jintao’s praising of China’s socialist system will go over in the US press…

OMG!!11! That socialist dictator is talking to…that other socialist dictator—Obama! They’re conspiring!

jc717 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:28:33am

re: #30 oaktree

If we’ve collectively put our heads in the sand as a world civilization regarding the oncoming major climate changes what makes you think in the least that the same leadership will have any forethought towards starting the projects to build infrastructure to support shifting city populations, resources, and convert land to arable use?

Cities (and farms) don’t sprout out of the sand when you plant magic seeds, and the costs would be astronomical compared to anything done by our country in the past. Simply attempting it would change our culture in multiple ways.

Plus, once things start going downhill those who couldn’t afford to move their cities (or didn’t care enough to), or where left out for one reason or another, will come clamoring to the high ground and available food as well. Another facet that will irrevocably change our culture and outlook.

Given that, it appears quite logical to attempt to alleviate the worst of things now and not have to tear up and attempt to move everything later. But America and it’s leadership seem unable to make sacrifices now as an investment towards preventing much greater disruption later.

Because once the sh!t hits the fan, we can get stuff done. The problem is getting people to invest/sacrifice for something that to them isn’t apparent or won’t be a problem for 20+ years. People tend to be very reactive. Try convincing the masses that we need to raise taxes today to prevent flooding/famine 30 years from now and see how far you get.

Kragar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:29:11am

re: #56 wrenchwench

OMG!!11! That socialist dictator is talking to…that other socialist dictator—Obama! They’re conspiring!

[applause]

Shiplord Kirel Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:30:25am

Even more reason to think Rush Limbaugh is a braying jackass:

Rush Limbaugh apes ‘ching chong’ Hu Jintao

I’ll credit the tiresome druggy with enough intelligence to remember the uproar when Rosie O’Donnell pulled this same stupid stunt. Apparently he just doesn’t care: His audience will get the message and show nothing but sympathy if evil PC forces make him apologize.

wrenchwench Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:30:56am

re: #58 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

[applause]

*clapping on command*

Vicious Babushka Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:31:35am

re: #57 jc717

Because once the sh!t hits the fan, we can get stuff done. The problem is getting people to invest/sacrifice for something that to them isn’t apparent or won’t be a problem for 20+ years. People tend to be very reactive. Try convincing the masses that we need to raise taxes today to prevent flooding/famine 30 years from now and see how far you get.

We are seeing floods and famines today that we thought were impossible 30 years ago. 30 years from now it will be worse.

Here are some videos posted by Ludwig that are worth watching.

Jadespring Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:32:46am

re: #57 jc717

Because once the sh!t hits the fan, we can get stuff done. The problem is getting people to invest/sacrifice for something that to them isn’t apparent or won’t be a problem for 20+ years. People tend to be very reactive. Try convincing the masses that we need to raise taxes today to prevent flooding/famine 30 years from now and see how far you get.

Well if we have another similar year (chaotic weather wise) as last year and for the next couple years after that I expect a few more of the masses will come on board.

People keep talking about 20+ years. We’re already seeing it NOW and if what’s happening now continues the ‘oh it’s just an annomoly’ argument gets harder to convince people of.

Alexzander Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:34:10am

re: #49 Big Steve

Oh really?

1. Organization X is powerful because the make a lot of money.
2. Organization X makes money by selling a product to as many people who can buy it.
3. I am a consumer of Organization X’s products.
4. Organization X is doing things that while legal, I disagree strongly with.

Therefore which of the following should you do:
A. Stop buying X’s product and lower their revenue.
B. Continue to buy X’s product and keep them strong and powerful.
C. I am unwilling to stop buying their product because it would ruin my lifestyle so I will just continue to buy from them but will hate them and make no attempt to influence them in any meaningful way.

So what part is sillogistically incorrect?

If a logging company destroyed the trees that formed the living habitat of a community of birds, and some of those birds managed to adapt to this devastation by living in the crevices of the constructed buildings in the space, do the birds have right to air grievance over the destruction of their habitat?

If a first nations man grew up separated from his family at an early age, and put into a ‘residential school’ where he was denied knowledge of his own language ,religion and traditional skills of survival, and furthermore his entire people had systematically been denied their original land to roam and exist off, meaning that this first nations man now required certain apparatuses of the state for his existence, does that mean he is not allowed to be critical of it?

Big Steve Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:35:28am

re: #53 Alouette

The alternative to purchasing their product is to strip naked and go live in a cave. Who is willing to do that, other than some extremely disturbed individuals?

Boycott is not an option because these mega-corporations control everything.

I have been a member of the API and have chaired committees in the past and served on its board. You would be very surprised to learn how small their lobbying budget is compared to what other things they do. Also the most common talk at API meetings is how powerless they feel. I would also say that EVERY person I worked with in the API was a good person and I never met the so called “evil old men” that some envision. In fact API has a very high number of women participating in the organization.

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:43:35am

re: #23 Big Steve

Well maybe you could express your displeasure towards those organizations more effectively by completely boycotting the products they sell.

How? Turn off my heat and freeze to death?

jc717 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:46:02am

re: #62 Jadespring

Well if we have another similar year (chaotic weather wise) as last year and for the next couple years after that I expect a few more of the masses will come on board.

People keep talking about 20+ years. We’re already seeing it NOW and if what’s happening now continues the ‘oh it’s just an annomoly’ argument gets harder to convince people of.

The top 15 are at least 35 years old.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

The 20 deadliest ones are at least 70 years old.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

Temps rising by a few degrees will be disruptive, but it won’t be the end of civilization. The sky is not falling.

Jadespring Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:46:04am

re: #65 Fozzie Bear

How? Turn off my heat and freeze to death?

Well if lots of people did that it would permanently cut into their customer base….

//(obviously)

Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:46:53am

re: #66 jc717

“Disruptive” in this case meaning mass famines.

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:46:56am

re: #66 jc717

The top 15 are at least 35 years old.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

The 20 deadliest ones are at least 70 years old.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

Temps rising by a few degrees will be disruptive, but it won’t be the end of civilization. The sky is not falling.

The holocaust wasn’t the end of civilization. Neither was the black plague. That doesn’t mean they weren’t INCREDIBLY FREAKING BAD.

Jadespring Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:53:16am

re: #66 jc717

The top 15 are at least 35 years old.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

The 20 deadliest ones are at least 70 years old.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

Temps rising by a few degrees will be disruptive, but it won’t be the end of civilization. The sky is not falling.

Did I suggest that it was falling? Nope.

And going by the biggest and the deadliest is a fallacy and the issue it not necessarily about out and out famine. It’s frequency, different regional timing of events, the acuteness of the events when they happen, locations and effects on things like crop yields, especially in major food basket areas.

If you really want a good showing of how weather and the frequency of extremer whether patterns are increasing check out the stats for insurance companies. The big folks in that industry are murmuring cause they’re seeing it in their numbers.

jc717 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 11:12:37am

re: #70 Jadespring

Did I suggest that it was falling? Nope.

And going by the biggest and the deadliest is a fallacy and the issue it not necessarily about out and out famine. It’s frequency, different regional timing of events, the acuteness of the events when they happen, locations and effects on things like crop yields, especially in major food basket areas.

If you really want a good showing of how weather and the frequency of extremer whether patterns are increasing check out the stats for insurance companies. The big folks in that industry are murmuring cause they’re seeing it in their numbers.

Can you point me towards some credible resources in that respect (insurance company projections)? thanks.

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 11:16:24am

re: #71 jc717

Can you point me towards some credible resources in that respect (insurance company projections)? thanks.

Nobody sells 50-100 year insurance policies that cannot be adjusted.

garhighway Thu, Jan 20, 2011 11:25:14am

re: #35 Big Steve

right…so we aren’t willing to do without their products and services but we are very willing to go immediately up the ladder of inference and assume that these organizations will always act against the best interests of the country, the environment, and the consumers they serve.

Where did the “always” come from? They are clearly acting against the long-term interests of the planet (and its occupants: us) IN THIS CASE. Do they “always”? Who knows? Do you claim to know what they are up to 24/7? I don’t.

Going to “always” is a pretty sure sign you’ve got a crap argument.

Jadespring Thu, Jan 20, 2011 11:26:42am

re: #71 jc717

Can you point me towards some credible resources in that respect (insurance company projections)? thanks.

Way to many to do just a few links.

Just google “insurance companies climate change stats”

You find lots of info on risk assessment as well as reports from companies themselves.

You can also google individual companies for example “PricewaterhouseCoopers climate change risk” and find info about what they’re actually doing. Many of the big ones like this and people like Lloyds not only have specific climate change risk divisions but offer clients help in assessing their own risk.

Amory Blaine Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:58:50pm

Also one of the reasons I completely reject the Republican party.

spiderx Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:10:16pm

Media Matters Video

and fox news is right there with them with the propaganda

Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:35:07pm

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.”

/I think I play too much Civ IV

Romantic Heretic Thu, Jan 20, 2011 5:09:59pm

re: #14 Talking Point Detective

Don’t know if you saw the end of the previous thread. Apparently, you’re quite mistaken. Research in new energy technologies is a waste of money - and such programs should be cut (along with public transportation, SS, Medicare and other unimportant drags on the economy).

[Link: online.wsj.com…]

Some scary shit in that editorial.

To quote H. Beam Piper, “It’s too late. The gates are down and the barbarians are inside.”

boxhead Thu, Jan 20, 2011 7:45:36pm

I wish this web site was like Usenet and allowed cross postings. This and two other threads really piss me off in that the GOP displays complete lack of foresight and blatantly ignore good science. the worst part is that I don’t know if it is for short term political gain, or are they that stupid/ignorant. I am also at a loss deciding which is worse….

happyface Fri, Jan 21, 2011 3:29:51pm

I’m sorry. Is somebody truly believing in global warming so strongly that they would go along with this administration’s attempts to strangle American (and American only) industry?

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

GOP and Energy Lobbies In Closed Talks to Destroy All Climate Change Rules

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud